Getting rid of fees won't make a fair deal for students, but neither will keeping them as they are

With my third year of university on the horizon, I have spent two years engaged in the debate over student fees, which in recent weeks has returned to the mainstream, with the release of a new report on the government’s approach, and two Labour leadership candidates pledging free tuition at the point of delivery. I take a middle view, somewhere between those calling for free education and the current government’s elitist higher education policy.

Tertiary education should not be free. Unlike healthcare or basic education, it is a privilege and generates great rewards. But it should be fair, which means ensuring value for money and making it easier for those from disadvantaged backgrounds to afford. According to a new report from the Independent Commission on Fees, set up in 2012 to evaluate the impact of higher university tuition fees, this is far from the case. While some of the problems expected when the new fees were introduced have been avoided or mitigated, the government and the industry still have a lot to do.

Going to university weighs on someone’s mind from before they go until decades after they have graduated. Some 78 per cent of 16-18-year-olds are “very” or “fairly” concerned about the cost of living as a student, the commission found. Some 68 per cent are concerned about high tuition fees and 58 per cent are worried about having to repay student loans after their studies have finished.

They are right to worry; the Commission also found that many of today’s graduates will be paying off their debts until they are in their 50s, when they will likely have mortgages and their own children’s education to contend with. Despite this, the commission estimates that three-quarters of loans will not be resolved by the time they are written off 30 years after graduation, with the exchequer only recouping about 55 per cent of the money it is owed.

Things are only going to get worse. In last month’s Budget, George Osborne announced the scrapping of maintenance grants for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and a decision to allow tuition fees to increase in line with inflation, perhaps seeing them reach £10,000 a year by 2020. Students are going to have more and more debt.

It is not all bad news. The Commission, in conjunction with UCAS, found that the proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds entering higher education is greater than ever before. Yet last year this figure was still 2.5 times lower than for advantaged students. And poorer students are worst hit by the new changes; they will graduate with tens of thousands more pounds worth of debt than those whose parents can support them through their studies.

If the government can claim that its changes haven’t put 18 and 19-year-olds off from applying to university and studying a traditional three-year course (the figures have remained steady since 2010), it cannot say the same for part-time and mature students, numbers of whom have fallen by 48 and 10 per cent respectively.

The report warns that this decline is evidence of the threat the new fee regime poses to universities’ ability to promote social mobility. Part-time and mature students tend to have chosen these options because of a lack of funds; their falling numbers suggest that the very poorest students are being pushed out of higher education altogether.

Combined with the scrapping of maintenance grants, this is evidence of the regressive nature of the government’s changes to university funding. With a university education, often to post-graduate level, increasingly necessary for many professions, this is worrying. Therefore, warning that the effects of debt are not yet being felt and could cause unforeseen problems, the Commission is also calling for the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to investigate whether the current system is providing value for money.

For students, it certainly isn’t. For £9000 a year I get eight hours teaching over 23 weeks, and a short paragraph of feedback on my heavily researched, long essays. While the teaching at Warwick is undeniably of high quality, this isn’t much bang for my buck. It is no wonder that many students resent their high fees, especially those studying humanities and the arts, whose fees subsidise the more teaching-centric science and maths disciplines. These subjects also benefit from the most investment, from new buildings to business partnerships. Clearly, many students are not receiving the education they are paying for.

So what is to be done to make higher education fair and valuable? Most obviously, maintenance grants should be reinstated and more scholarships offered, thus boosting social mobility for the least privileged. And if fees are allowed to float upwards, students should only pay for what they are getting—which should encourage universities to provide a better education to all. Otherwise, universities will become places for those at the top to entrench their position without acquiring much knowledge in the process. Hardly what we want from institutions dedicated to progress.

YOU’VE HIT THE LIMIT

You have now reached your limit of 3 free articles in the last 30 days. But don’t worry! You can get another 7 articles absolutely free, simply by entering your email address in the box below.

When you register we’ll also send you a free e-book—Writing with punch—which includes some of the finest writing from our archive of 22 years. And we’ll also send you a weekly newsletter with the best new ideas in politics and philosophy of culture, which you can of course unsubscribe from at any time

Email

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information.

Click to learn more about these interests and how we use your data. You will be able to object to this processing on the next page and in all our communications.

Comments

David Murphy

August 18, 2015 at 13:33

I don't agree that STEM subjects get more investment. University of Reading has just announced they are shutting down one of their software engineering departments and Physics was closed down some time ago. They are high cost to run, there are not so many students interested (especially from the UK) and most don't attract much business investment. It seemed at Reading they liked having the humanities because they are cheaper to run.
"For £9000 a year I get eight hours teaching over 23 weeks"
Is this really the case? That would be one lecture roughly one lecture every three weeks. Did you mean 8 hours per week over 23 weeks? When I was at UNiversity studying History (1977-1980) we had multiple lectures and tutorials every week for three terms (10 weeks per term) and essays were pretty comprehensively marked. I was very prone to splitting infinitives, to the disgust of one of my tutors (an American).
In a market system what should happen is that those getting poor value should be complaining and putting off other students. Also perhaps arranging transfers to other, better universities. However it also needs remembering that a university is not going to spoon feed you like you were at 'A' level.
As to your answer to the funding and fairness issues, I would like to see the government putting greater funding into useful subjects where there is broader value to society. So subsidies supporting education, STEM subjects. Also, more to support poorer students. Also, better careers advice - how many people taking a degree actually need one? I suspect we have too many students now for what society and especially the economy, actually need. Perhaps we need a broader range of courses, such as were provided by CFEs and Polytechnics years ago - less academic and more geared to helping young people progress.
There is no easy answer because the first question is wht? Why universities, what does society want? What purpose do and should universities and other higher education serve? What other forms of education will provide individuals and business what they need ?

Prospect's free newsletter

The big ideas that are shaping our world—straight to your inbox. PLUS a free e-book and 7 articles of your choosing on the Prospect website.

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information. Click here to learn more about these purposes and how we use your data. You will be able to opt-out of further contact on the next page and in all our communications.

This Month's Magazine

Steve Bloomfield asks whether nationalism will take hold in Britain. Could a populist really reach No 10? Plus: Julia Blunck on the world’s next environmental catastrophe and Philip Ball on the greatest mystery in physics today

Register today and access any 7 articles on the Prospect’s website for FREE in the next 30 days.. PLUS find out about the big ideas that will shape our world—with Prospect’s FREE newsletter sent to your inbox. We'll even send you our e-book—Writing with punch—with some of the finest writing from the Prospect archive, at no extra cost!

Prospect subscribers have full access to all the great content on our website, including our entire archive.

If you do not know your login details, simply close this pop-up and click 'Login' on the black bar at the top of the screen, then click 'Forgotten password?', enter your email address and press 'Submit'. Your password will then be emailed to you.

Thank you for your support of Prospect and we hope that you enjoy everything the site has to offer.

This site uses cookies to improve the user experience. By using this site, you agree that we can set and use these cookies. For more details on the cookies we use and how to manage them, see our Privacy and Cookie Policy.